What is the appropriate way to proclaim scripture as a lector?

  • Thread starter Thread starter milimac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

milimac

Guest
I recently read the following article from a trusted website, entitled Reading the Word Sotto Voce. Proclaiming the readings can certainly be done with too much drama, but the author of the article seems to assert that the lector should refrain from putting any emotion or dramatization into it at all. I’m not sure if I agree, but he makes some good points, so I’m not sure I entirely disagree either. I’ve also noticed that the readings done at Mass on EWTN (another trusted resource) seem to be done in this Sotto Voce style as well.

What’s your opinion? Better yet, are there some official guidelines as to how scripture should be proclaimed?
 
milimac said:
I recently read the following article from a trusted website, entitled Reading the Word Sotto Voce. Proclaiming the readings can certainly be done with too much drama, but the author of the article seems to assert that the lector should refrain from putting any emotion or dramatization into it at all. I’m not sure if I agree, but he makes some good points, so I’m not sure I entirely disagree either. I’ve also noticed that the readings done at Mass on EWTN (another trusted resource) seem to be done in this Sotto Voce style as well.

What’s your opinion? Better yet, are there some official guidelines as to how scripture should be proclaimed?
Click to expand...
I very much agree that reading Sotto Voce most fully serves the read word. The primary reason I think isn’t mentioned. The reading is being heard by may faithfull who hear and understand meaning at various levels. Reading the word Sotto voce allows that more universal ear to hear it. It also meets the demands of the many ears attached to minds uniquely maleable for entering exclusive paradigms of the word that are between the individual and the Holy Spirit.
 
“To stress engaging eye contact, intonation, inflection, and to seek to move and emote are all rooted in a basic theological error that regards the written word of God as a dead letter that stands in need of a grandiloquent orator to bring it life.”

I disagree, to some extent, with the premise of the article. However, let me preface my comments by saying the overly dramatic presentation, IMHO, does not serve the intended purpose.

Unless I’m misreading the gist of the author, it seems that the good Deacon’s suggestions could lead to a BORING, and therefor distracting listening experience for the congregation.

Don’t get me wrong…I’m not suggesting that the word of the Almighty needs “spicing up” or that parishoners are there to be “entertained”. But it seems to me that he’s suggesting that Lectors tone down their natural inclination toward intonation and inflection, which is part of our human form of speaking and communication.

To address the OP’s question, IMHO there is a middle ground, communicating the Word should fall somewhere between a “lively reading” and distractingly boring.
 
To address the OP’s question, IMHO there is a middle ground, communicating the Word should fall somewhere between a “lively reading” and distractingly boring
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this in the context of the average parish mass. I have heard both extremes and they both can distract.

OTOH, there’s nothing like the chanted readings in a solemn EF Mass!!
 
I totally disagree with the article that the OP linked for us.

We are to proclaim God’s Word to the congregation. That means that the hearers must get the full sense of the reading. This cannot be done using “sotto voce”.

I certainly agree that over dramatization is inappropriate, as is speaking too fast or too slow. Yesterday, at the Good Friday Service, the first reading was read far too slowly, and also in an overly dramatic fashion. It did not serve to open God’s Word to us.

At the same time, reading without any proper inflection, emphasis, and also, use of other elements of elocution - accentuation; pitch; pace; and proper use of pauses - will result in the hearers being unable to get the meaning of the reading.

According to the booklet entitled The Ministry of Lectors, by James A Wallace, published by The Liturgical Press, "As a lector, you are asked to find the middle ground between uninvolved reading and amateur theatrics.
 
I’ll throw my 2 cents into this one.

I agree with the author (article in the original post). I will say though that when I read it, I understood it to mean that the readings should not be proclaimed in a “dramatic” style, but that does not mean that there should be a complete absence of voice inclination and accenting and every other characteristic that makes our speaking sound “natural.” I don’t see where the author directly says this, but I did come away with that impression. In other words, I don’t think we should take his principles to the extreme. We should not proclaim the readings as if we were some kind of mechanical voice absent of all inflection. A question should sound like a question and a statement should sound like a statement. But we should not read as if we were reading a fairy tale to kindergarteners. “Then GOD said…let there be … liiiiight” too many readers (lay and clergy alike) fall into this trap. They make themselves the focus of the reading. Not only that, but it’s just plain distracting, and even insulting to the listeners. It’s as if we haven’t learned how to read yet, and someone has to read it for us while we just look at the pretty pictures.

I do get the impression sometimes that the reader thinks we are all little children and we are being read a bedtime story. That causes serious harm because we expect the reading to open with “once upon a time…” and it causes us to be in a mindset that we’re hearing a cute little story rather than hearing the eternal Word of God. We can easily forget that it’s not just a story, but it’s a true story. It’s difficult to hear the bible narratives as true stories (spiritual truths, this isn’t about the entire bible being literal history) when the atmosphere is that which we associate with a bedtime story.

Our voice should sound natural and should appropriately match the tone of the sentence, yes indeed. I think what he’s saying is that if the voice of the reader becomes the focal point rather than the Word beind proclaimed, something has gone wrong. But I did not come away from reading the article having the impression that the reader should have no vocal inflection at all. I think he was trying to address a misconception we hear all too often that the reader should “animate” the Word. In this I totally agree. But I did not come away with the impression that the reader should sound like a robot.
 
If the author had provided a few audio examples of Scripture read in a typical manner vs. read sotto voce, I would be able to say whether or not I agree with his idea.

The Word of God is divine and human, which means it must be treated as both divine and human. That requires intonation and inflection. It does not require dramaticization, though.
 
I think the article contrasts in its emphasis to what is in the official liturgical books. More dramatic readings tends to be encouraged in them. More than one reader proclaiming the Passion this week highlights that. Things can be overly dramatic and that can be distracting. But that concern is not the emphasis in the liturgical books.

From the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass:
“14. A speaking style on the part of the readers that is audible, clear, and intelligent is the first means of transmitting the word of God properly to the assembly. The readings, taken from the approved editions,28 may be sung in a way suited to different languages. This singing, however, must serve to stress the words, not obscure them.”

“55. ‘It is necessary that those who exercise the ministry of reader, even if they have not received institution, be truly qualified and carefully prepared so that the faithful may develop a warm and living love for Scripture from listening to the sacred texts read.[footnote 93: 1975 GIRM n. 66]
Their preparation must above all be spiritual, but what may be called a technical prepara-
tion is also needed. The spiritual preparation presupposes at least a biblical and liturgical
formation. The purpose of their biblical formation is to give readers the ability to under-
stand the readings in context and to perceive by the light of faith the central point of the
revealed message. The liturgical formation ought to equip the readers to have some grasp of the meaning and structure of the liturgy of the word and of the significance of its connection with the liturgy of the eucharist. The technical preparation should make the readers more skilled in the art of reading publicly, either with the power of their own voice or with the help of sound equipment.”

Directory for Masses with Children:
“24. … Even in Masses with children the diversity of ministries should be encouraged
so that the Mass may stand out clearly as the celebration of a community.24 For
example, readers and cantors, whether children or adults, should be employed. In
this way a variety of voices will keep the children from becoming bored.”

2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):
“38. In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the
deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.”
 
=milimac;5064025]I recently read the following article from a trusted website, entitled Reading the Word Sotto Voce. Proclaiming the readings can certainly be done with too much drama, but the author of the article seems to assert that the lector should refrain from putting any emotion or dramatization into it at all. I’m not sure if I agree, but he makes some good points, so I’m not sure I entirely disagree either. I’ve also noticed that the readings done at Mass on EWTN (another trusted resource) seem to be done in this Sotto Voce style as well.
Click to expand...
What’s your opinion? Better yet, are there some official guidelines as to how scripture should be proclaimed?
Click to expand...
I have just read a similar “letter to the Editor” in this months Homletic Pastoral Review which is my Favorite Catholic magazine. It ranks right up there with The Adoremus Bulletin.

I disagree strongly on the following grounds.

First, the NO Mass is already firmly established as a “spectator event.” I’m speaking here of clearly WHAT IS, NOT what Should Be!

This being the NORM, there is the issue of expectations being met.

The “normal” expectation is that those who come to Mass are going to be (dare I say it?; entertained.) Not in an extreme way, but in a way that takes very-much into account who is doing what, what they are wearing, personal actions, and when it comes to the READINGS, one has come to expect, a dramatic or at least, a semi-dramatic reading, which helps them understand, at least what parts are of greater significance.

As the Lector is Proclaiming the “Words of God” and thus teaching, it is not an unreasonable expectation that it be done WELL, and with the enthusiasm and emphasis of the original speaker.

Diction, articulation and relating the read message in a manner of the original speaker are today’s common expectations.The close one comes to repeating the message in the orginal manner and wmphasis, the greater the likliness of it being accepted.

Love and prayers,
 
One reason the prayers and readings are chanted in the Byzantine tradition is to make sure that any idiosyncratic quirks are suppressed in their public recitation.

And when the readings are chanted properly, they are more easily understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top